Member Info for BuenaVista

What price did you pay? What's fair value? Have you cashed out yet?

Yep, Dr Tapp is going to be pilloried on 17 October as the onco-world exposes him as a charlatan. He must be having sleepless nights dreading the thought of standing up there and wilfully destroying his hard-earned international reputation and whole career just for helping out lil' ol' Avacta.

Https://www.aim-awards.co.uk/shortlist/best-technology-award

AVACTA GROUP PLC

BOKU, INC.

CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES PLC

FILTRONIC PLC

INTERCEDE GROUP PLC

SCANCELL HOLDINGS PLC

Tsk, you traders are such scallywags.

Aldebaran wrote: "Also, HEMO need to be a bit concerned about AVA3996 tbh. If avacta ever decided to resurrect that which is a protease inhibitor so useful in AML."

If Avacta can link bortezomib itself via a self-immolating group, then Takeda would be very interested, I'm sure. Avacta couldn't do that before because bortezomib can't be linked directly to the pre|CISION dipeptide, hence the bortezomib 'analogue', AVA3996. Such a FAP-Bor candidate would be a lot easier to progress through clinical trials than AVA3996 was ever going to be. AVA3996 is a dead duck, useful only in providing (yet more) invitro and animal model evidence of the pre|CISION platform's (the dipeptide's) specificity for the FAP enzyme.

Of course, it wouldn't have to be bortezomib, any suitable efficacious proteasome inhibitor could become a candidate.

Can't say for sure Bella, but Saturn was in Taurus, rising, and there was a G in the month, so probably.

The next HEMO clinical result will be about how effective the dosing of the latest patient was. That is the third patient in the first of four planned cohorts in phase 1a of HEMO's CAR-T therapy, their first clinical candidate, HG-CT-1, for AML (a leukaemia). That Phase 1a trial is estimated to end in January 2027, so very early days.

HEMO's RSI went up to 97.76 last Tuesday (910p) and was fractionally over 70 at the end of the week (758p). As I write, the share price is currently 945p, so the RSI is again way north of 70.

I get that HEMO was severely undervalued (on the assumptions of clinical and commercial success) due to funding concerns and had been issuing shares and warrants in tranches to get that funding, which had depressed the share price, but are now flush with cash. I'm also aware that HEMO has other technologies, but that they are in very early stage developement. HEMO is a long way from having an approved product in what is not a massive market, albeit a market with a hodge-podge of therapies:

AI Overview: "...there are standards of therapy for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), but treatment is not one-size-fits-all; it depends on factors like the patient's fitness for intensive treatment, the specific subtype and genetic mutations of the AML, and whether the disease is newly diagnosed, refractory, or recurrent. Standard approaches involve two phases—induction to achieve remission, followed by consolidation or maintenance therapy—and may include intensive chemotherapy, lower-intensity therapies (often for older or less fit patients), targeted therapies for specific mutations, and, in some cases, a stem cell transplant."

HEMO's CAR-T therapy targets a specific marker in AML, so it is a single target therapy, not a platform that in and of itself has wide application.

So am I missing something here? Maybe those who are invested there and here (I'll not say here and there!) can explain why HEMO's CAR-T tech is regarded as 'better', 'sexier' than Avacta's pre|CISION tech? Or is it just a case of newer must be 'better' and complex and unfathomable is 'sexier'? Genuinely interested

I don't need to know which one Touk, but how is the 'top university' so determined?

Agreed, but how should the company be contactable by shareholders.

What do you expect from ICR and the others? From what I've seen reported on here they respond with nothing more than bland vanilla noncommittal platitudes that just say blah.

With CC refusing to respond, it's probably best to blast her with our thoughts and concerns and, short of talking face to face, hope that she takes it all on board.

It's really not satisfactory.

Email her and tell her.

Quaint how 'Wynnie' is only chatting on the 'Wynnie' thread. That's something we must remember...

Why? In case you get burgularised? Surely that can happen any day up there, and especially weekdays? (Hope you've superglued your hubcaps on.)

I noticed that error very soon after the 'new' blue website was launched on or shortly after 16 October last year. An email to CC about it was ignored.

Coincidence? I think not. I'd just emailed Karen Harrison this afternoon (15:03) to point her to the mysterious AVA7103 on the Pipeline page, which has now been corrected (as of 16:16).

Thanks. I thought it likely wouldn't be free!

@B2HS2L, could you give me the link to the PL broker note please?

Thanks B2HS2L. With that and the company's emphasis on SGC and TNBC I think it must be those two.

B2HS2L wrote " "We are also delighted to see initial signs of efficacy in both phase 1b indications".... (- implying TNBC & SGC)..."

This was our assumption at the time but is it not the case that the patients in the TNBC cohort had to go through an additional assessment (can't remember quite where that was stated nor what it was, but it definitely was stated) and so, starting a bit later than the other two cohort, the 'both' may refer to SGC and STS? As ever, the lack of clarity from the company over what should be made clear is frustrating.

Is that predicated on the principle that if a glass of red is good for you a couple of bottles are even better?